The Instigator
EqualityForeverAndEver
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sunfire315
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should Abortion be Legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Sunfire315
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 370 times Debate No: 86527
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

EqualityForeverAndEver

Pro

Hello!
I am arguing the side of pro-choice. I chose this for the following reasons:

(1)Condoms and birth control do not always work, so abortions need to be a backup plan. Although abstentions is a safe method of not becoming pregnant, it is very unlikely that most people will follow this advice.

(2)(3)Rape is a big issue. Being pregnant with your attackers baby can be very damaging mentally. Even if you give this baby up for adoption, you will still have to go through the pain of giving birth. Rape victims having abortions is pretty rare, but it still should be available.

(4)Giving birth is costly. Young women who don't make that much money can't afford to pay the medical bill. Abortions are much cheaper.

Thank you!

(1)http://americanpregnancy.org...
(2)http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
(3)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
(4)http://www.parents.com...
Sunfire315

Con

I think both me and my opponent would agree that killing babies ought to be illegal. The baby is innocent and has a right to live, even if the mother wants to kill him. I would like to ask my opponent why he believes that an unborn child has any less right to live than an infant? If the fetus ought to have the same right to live as a baby, then it is absurd to say that your financial issues give you the moral right to kill him. What possibly could?
Debate Round No. 1
EqualityForeverAndEver

Pro

Thank you for replying!

Yes, I do think that killing BABIES should be illegal. But, babies and fetuses are two very different things. I do not condone aborting a baby after the the time period in which it would be able to survive on its own.

(1)Killing fetuses is nothing like killing a living, breathing child. The fetus is too young to be considered a person.

Plus, it should always be the mother's choice what she does with her body. The fetus is made up of her body. If she makes it, she should be allowed to kill it.

(1)http://www.abort73.com...
Sunfire315

Con

You cannot be too young to be a person. if you are referring to "personhood" in the sense of sentience, be aware that a baby is not sentient, neither is a comatose person or somebody who is asleep. [1] And biologically speaking a fetus is alive from the moment of conception. Even pro-choicers can admit this.[2] Saying that a mother somehow has the right to kill a fetus because it is made of her body creates an insidious double standard. You clearly affirm the right of an infant to live, but a baby doesn't stop being made up of the mothers body the moment he or she is born.

On another note: why did you give a link to a pro-life website?
[1]http://www.livestrong.com...
[2]http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Debate Round No. 2
EqualityForeverAndEver

Pro

A baby is alive from the moment it is conceived, but it is not a person. It has no ability to feel emotion or have thoughts.

Saying that a person that is asleep doesn't have sentience is like saying that a person with their eyes closed is permanently blind.

Yes, as soon as a baby is born, it stops being part of the mother. The umbilical cord is separated at birth, so the baby stops relying on the mother for food. Therefore, it isn't a part of her anymore
Sunfire315

Con

Notice I did not say "permanently not sentient". A fetus, much like a man who is asleep , will become sentient and conscious at some point. So in the same way it is still wrong to kill the child. The fetus may be dependent upon the mother, but it is not a part of her by any means. Being reliant upon someone wholly does not mean that they are a part of their body. http://www.abort73.com...
Debate Round No. 3
EqualityForeverAndEver

Pro

Using the basis, "will become concious at some point." Is very irrational. Using that logic, you can assume sperm will become a human at come point. Would you like to outlaw masturbation?
Also, would you make it so that every female has to become pregnant whenever she ovulates because that egg has the potential to be human?
(1)Yes, a baby is part of the mother. I agree that after the child has developed enough inside the womb to be able to survive outside, it shouldn't not be killed. But, when the baby is nothing more than a sack of flesh, it should be the mother's choice.

(1)http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Sunfire315

Con

The sperm will never become sentient, neither will the egg. They combine together to form a zygote which will BECOME sentient, but neither the sperm or the egg will become sentient in and of themselves. The scary thing is here; that a newborn child technically is not sentient either. [1]. So by your definition it should just be "a sack of flesh" too.

[1]http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Debate Round No. 4
EqualityForeverAndEver

Pro

Yes, but the sperm has the POTENTIAL to become sentiment. So does the egg. A fetus is the same way. When does it become wrong to kill what might be?
I clearly stated that after a baby is able to survive out of the mother, it should not be killed. A newborn child has a much higher mental capacity than a fetus.
When a baby is born, it bonds with the mother and immediately starts growing mentally. A fetus cannot do either.
Sunfire315

Con


1. "When a baby is born, it bonds with the mother and immediately starts growing mentally. A fetus cannot do either."
A fetus is definitely growing mentally in the womb; after all this is when the brain is forming. And being able to bond with the mother is a foolish prerequisite for moral worth.

I was well aware that you believe that a newborn child is not just a sack of flesh. The point in my previous argument was to show an inconsistency in your logic. Now you defend this by saying that this is when the fetus begins to grow towards sentience and grow mentally, and therefore has the right to live. But ironically this is the exact same line of reasoning which validates my position: the fetus is growing mentally, after all this is when the brain is forming. It is only just a matter of time.

Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Sunfire315 9 months ago
Sunfire315
Are you going to post?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by rextr05 9 months ago
rextr05
EqualityForeverAndEverSunfire315Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gives many opinions & fails to reco what the word, "sentient" means. He assumes it's very much like the word 'conscious.' & he misspells the word conscious. Pro's statement of, "The fetus is made up of her body. If she makes it, she should be allowed to kill it," shows his lack of knowledge re a fetus. It is certainly not made up of her body. A fetus is a separate entity that is supported by the mother. I must ask pro where he was during biology class. & pro's source for this conclusion, never states anything about this conclusion of being made up of her body. It seems that the lack of knowledge re a fetus & the biology thereof, lost you this debate. Pro's argument lacks credible facts, it's all opinion with the references not applicable to your opinions. You need facts included in your argument, not just sources copy & pasted. You must explain their content to bolster your argument. Completely unprofessional & a bad example of debating skills.